Current Events > Liberals are getting their dream, atlanta cops quitting right now

(+) Yeah! (+)

At that point, he was in a felony state
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

thats it. Its justified

---

Annihilated posted...

And what the hell makes you think that he would go to the ONE place they know to look for him? Jesus, there is ZERO brainpower in this hive mind.

So the answer is to shoot him in the back instead of chasing on foot? So you agree the cops were lazy? Weren't fit enough to chase after a suspect?

The decision was made to end a man's life instead of using their feet.

---

Annihilated posted...

And what the hell makes you think that he would go to the ONE place they know to look for him?

Most criminals are stupid.

If the guy did get away (which he shouldn't have been able to regardless) then it won't take long to find him. With an ID, no vehicle being drunk and an arrest warrant. He'd be found within days if not hours.

If this was Europe or New Zealand or Canada or Australia or Japan this man would be in prison and not dead, these cops would still be on the force.

And guys like you and Dark Prince are arguing that's a bad thing because he deserves to die for the crime of being drunk and the police being incompetent.

You expect everyone else to ignore reality just because you want to. That worked for decades but it doesn't work anymore.
---

Annihilated posted...

And what the hell makes you think that he would go to the ONE place they know to look for him? Jesus, there is ZERO brainpower in this hive mind.

And hope he doesnt hurt anyone along the way even though he tried.

---

Jiggy101011 posted...

So the answer is to shoot him in the back instead of chasing on foot? So you agree the cops were lazy? Weren't fit enough to chase after a suspect?

The decision was made to end a man's life instead of using their feet.

No, the decision was made to shoot him. Shooting does not mean killing, lots of people survive police gunshots.

UnfairRepresent posted...

And guys like you and Dark Prince are arguing that's a bad thing because he deserves to die for the crime of being drunk and the police being incompetent.

No. I love how you word this no. He doesnt deserve to die. But he didnt get killed because his crime was being drunk lmfao

---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

No, they place no blame on the guy for anything. He was just peacefully sleeping! Its not his fault he fought the cops!

Strawman. Nobody said this. Stop lying.

No one is arguing it was wrong to arrest him. Just that it was wrong to shoot him.

Its the cops fault for struggling to control a drunk belligerent person!

It's sad you think this isn't true. If they were trained and handled the situation correctly, they wouldn't have struggled.

You're defending incompetence on the grounds that cops have to deal with people who break the law.

Well not shit the people they deal with are going to break the law, that doesnt mean cops get to be incompetent and shoot people in the back.
---

Good. Fuck that pathetic mayor who wanted to let officers die to a chils abuser

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Sure they will be inexperienced as hell but I think there are thousands of people looking to become police right now that want to make a difference and change the system

There is absolutely no evidence of this. Most areas have been suffering shortages from before this.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Strawman. Nobody said this. Stop lying.

No one is arguing it was wrong to arrest him. Just that it was wrong to shoot him.

It's sad you think this isn't true. If they were trained and handled the situation correctly, they wouldn't have struggled.

You're defending incompetence on the grounds that cops have to deal with people who break the law.

Well not shit the people they deal with are going to break the law, that doesnt mean cops get to be incompetent and shoot people in the back.

No amount of training prepares you for when youre really in a fight. Especially with full uniform, extra 50 pounds of gear on you, a vest limiting your mobility. My god

---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

At that point, he was in a felony state
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

thats it. Its justified

So justified he got charged for murder am I right? Lmao

---

I know it's already been said, but let me re-phrase it.

"Cops can't make mistakes in such high risk environments. Every cops needs to be the best there is because even one that's not can lead to innocent people being hurt."

Cops who can't live up to those standards leave.

"Wow such bad cops for doing what we said, there needs to be bad cops otherwise who could we possibly blame for the racial tensions in America?"

---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

No. I love how you word this no.

No, they place no blame on the guy for anything. He was just peacefully sleeping! Its not his fault he fought the cops!

You're such a hypocrite

Annihilated posted...

No, the decision was made to shoot him. Shooting does not mean killing, lots of people survive police gunshots.

This isn't the argument you think it is.

Living or dying it's a big deal to shoot someone in the back

and if you shoot someone you do it kill them

Hell if a cop (or anyone for that matter) is shooting at someone they are not trying to kill then they fucked up. Guns are lethal weapons.

If you shoot someone you've decided to kill them. If they happen to live, that doesn't change that you decided to kill them.
---

Looked gf posted...

So justified he got charged for murder am I right? Lmao

No. Justified as in danger to officers and society.

i cant wait for a year from now when the jury declines to prosecute. Like 99 percent of all these cases where you guys lose your mind on but are justified

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

If this was Europe or New Zealand or Canada or Australia or Japan this man would be in prison and not dead, these cops would still be on the force.

I don't know about those other countries. But cops here in Japan do not carry tasers. In general cops here try to avoid any kind of violent confrontation. As such they have the lowest or one of the lowest levels of police deaths depending on what you look at. America has over 200 times the rate of police deaths.

---

I like how you ignore how you keep saying he was shot for just being drunk lol

---

Annihilated posted...

No, the decision was made to shoot him. Shooting does not mean killing, lots of people survive police gunshots.

You know what has a higher chance of survival? Chasing down a suspect instead of shooting them.

---

Jiggy101011 posted...

You know what has a higher chance of survival? Chasing down a suspect instead of shooting them.

So does not stealing a cops weapon and using it against him after fighting them

---

rahasperj posted...

I know it's already been said, but let me re-phrase it.

"Cops can't make mistakes in such high risk environments. Every cops needs to be the best there is because even one that's not can lead to innocent people being hurt."

Cops who can't live up to those standards leave.

"Wow such bad cops for doing what we said, there needs to be bad cops otherwise who could we possibly blame for the racial tensions in America?"

This is a strawman

If the cops went "Man I'm incompetent and need to quit because I can't do the job." No one would be annoyed.

But look at what these cops and DarkPrince are saying.

They're bragging about ignoring crimes, saying they want the city to burn, saying it's okay to be incompetent and shoot people in the back. They WANT people to suffer and die and be victims of criminals to point out that corrupt police is better than no police.

And that's insane.

I agree them leaving a good thing long term but they are exposing some of the serious problems with the police force and it's right to point that out.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

They're bragging about ignoring crimes, saying they want the city to burn,

Where did I say that lol and when did they say that? Just because they quit doesnt mean anything. Theyll be replaced

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Living or dying it's a big deal to shoot someone in the back

Not if they're shooting BACK AT YOU.

UnfairRepresent posted...

and if you shoot someone you do it kill them

Hell if a cop (or anyone for that matter) is shooting at someone they are not trying to kill then they fucked up. Guns are lethal weapons.

If you shoot someone you've decided to kill them. If they happen to live, that doesn't change that you decided to kill them.

Wrong, you do it to stop them. The torso can take many bullets and victims can survive as long as several hours. Paramedics would arrive long before then. Stop propagating this lie.

Mark_DeRosa posted...

So does not stealing a cops weapon and using it against him after fighting them

Again, no one is defending the criminal.

We're talking about the cops actions.

The criminal wasn't being paid to get drunk in parking lot. The cops are being paid to protect and serve the community and uphold law. Them being incompetent and shooting people in the back is a big deal.

You can't evade facts by going "Yeah but the criminal did a crime, therefore incopetence is okay."

That should not be the standard for the police force let alone lethal force.
---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

No amount of training prepares you for when youre really in a fight. Especially with full uniform, extra 50 pounds of gear on you, a vest limiting your mobility. My god

So they are in full uniform, have protection, and... what? They got bruised up a bit so they decided to shoot? Did he have them in a choke hold? I think in your mind Rayshard had a gun pointed to the cops head, especially with the way you keep replacing taser with weapon every other post.

---

They protected and served the community by stopping a criminal that fought police, stole their weapon, and used it against them

he is a danger to officers and the public. Fact


---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

Where did I say that lol and when did they say that? Just because they quit doesnt mean anything. Theyll be replaced

"Atlanta police officers are refusing to answer the radio and walking off of the job. The county can go screw themselves. If you want a society without police well give you one. Let it burn!"

You said it was very smart and not bad. Repeatedly.
---

Jiggy101011 posted...

You know what has a higher chance of survival? Chasing down a suspect instead of shooting them.

You know what has an even higher chance than that? Not resisting arrest and not fighting armed police officers and stealing their weapons and using it against them.

Annihilated posted...

Not if they're shooting BACK AT YOU.

Wrong, you do it to stop them. The torso can take many bullets and victims can survive as long as several hours. Paramedics would arrive long before then. Stop propagating this lie.

Oh so he had a gun now?

---

Jiggy101011 posted...

So they are in full uniform, have protection, and... what? They got bruised up a bit so they decided to shoot? Did he have them in a choke hold? I think in your mind Rayshard had a gun pointed to the cops head, especially with the way you keep replacing taser with weapon every other post.

no, because he pointed a taser right at the cop. Anything goes at that point. What if there is another cartridge in there, he made the cop crash into the car from the reaction of pointing, jump on it and fight him more. Use the actual taser to drive stun him with it. Like you see the officer shoot the second the taser goes, wonder why


---

UnfairRepresent posted...

This is a strawman

If the cops went "Man I'm incompetent and need to quit because I can't do the job." No one would be annoyed.

But look at what these cops and DarkPrince are saying.

They're bragging about ignoring crimes, saying they want the city to burn, saying it's okay to be incompetent and shoot people in the back. They WANT people to suffer and die and be victims of criminals to point out that corrupt police is better than no police.

And that's insane.

I agree them leaving a good thing long term but they are exposing some of the serious problems with the police force and it's right to point that out.

I agree, they could've just quit and not said anything, and not said anything stupid. And sure, their reasons for doing so seem ill-willed. But most of them are probably thinking something along the lines of this:

"Everyone hates me and wants me dead and gone, just because I'm a cop. So fine I'll stop. If that's what they want. But they probably won't like what they get."

Doesn't change that it was stupid for any of them to make a public statement condemning the city or it's populace.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

"Atlanta police officers are refusing to answer the radio and walking off of the job. The county can go screw themselves. If you want a society without police well give you one. Let it burn!"

You said it was very smart and not bad. Repeatedly.

thats something some twitter guy said, where is there a cop actually saying that


---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

They protected and served the community by stopping a criminal that fought police, stole their weapon, and used it against them

he is a danger to officers and the public. Fact

Yes dead people are no dangers to anyone.

Thank you for that piece of logic Hal. If everyone on Earth was dead there would be no war, disease or poverty.

However shooting people in the back because you're incompetent isn't protecting the community. I shouldn't even have to say that sentence.

Jiggy101011 posted...

So they are in full uniform, have protection, and... what? They got bruised up a bit so they decided to shoot? Did he have them in a choke hold? I think in your mind Rayshard had a gun pointed to the cops head, especially with the way you keep replacing taser with weapon every other post.

His only arguments seem to be emotionally charged.

Lie about the victim
Lie about the cops
Lie about what people are upset about.
Annouce you're "done" and leaving

Repeat.

And keep in mind this is a cop armed with a gun who is doing this. So it makes you wonder what he writes in his reports.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Thank you for that piece of logic Hal. If everyone on Earth was dead there would be no war, disease or poverty.

itp: not realizing the difference of dangers displayed by the suspect and someone waiting in the drive the doing nothing. Its like youre not even trying to think

---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

thats something some twitter guy said, where is there a cop actually saying that

It was a direct quote from an Atlanta cop's email dude.

And you defended it.

Can you stop lying.
---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

no, because he pointed a taser right at the cop. Anything goes at that point. What if there is another cartridge in there, he made the cop crash into the car from the reaction of pointing, jump on it and fight him more. Use the actual taser to drive stun him with it. Like you see the officer shoot the second the taser goes, wonder why

1. Say his name
2. The fact you see a taser and immediately think you are at risk of losing your life is ridiculous, but then you immediately follow it up with "anything goes at that point".

Next you'll be telling me if someone takes a cops baton its headshot season.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

His only arguments seem to be emotionally charged.

Really its the opposite. Ive actually quoted case law which is what my opinion is.. youre the one cherry-picking statements and saying half truths

---

Jiggy101011 posted...

1. Say his name
2. The fact you see a taser and immediately think you are at risk of losing your life is ridiculous, but then you immediately follow it up with "anything goes at that point".

Next you'll be telling me if someone takes a cops baton its headshot season.

suspect brooks sure


---

Jiggy101011 posted...

1. Say his name
2. The fact you see a taser and immediately think you are at risk of losing your life is ridiculous, but then you immediately follow it up with "anything goes at that point".

Next you'll be telling me if someone takes a cops baton its headshot season.

someone takes a baton and uses it against a cop its probably even more justified than a taser lmao


---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

itp: not realizing the difference of dangers displayed by the suspect and someone waiting in the drive the doing nothing. Its like youre not even trying to think

Again, no one (sane at least) is arguing the police had no right to arrest him.

However they shouldn't have shot him in the back for fleeing (I shouldn't have to explain that, let alone to a cop)

And the situation came about because the cops handled it badly.

You going "But he was drunk so we had to eliminate the danger via shooting in the back, only way" is crazy not protecting or serving. It's incompetence and power trip.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

However they shouldn't have shot him in the back for fleeing (I shouldn't have to explain that, let alone to a cop)

Fleeing felon smh

---

Stop just saying drunk jfc. No its it because hes drunk

---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

someone takes a baton and uses it against a cop its probably even more justified than a taser lmao

Yeah I agree, that was a weird thing to say.

Guy beating you with a baton is one of the most justified uses of force there is.
---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

Fleeing felon smh

You still don't have to shoot him in the back.

Why do you ignore nearly everything people say then just say emotionally charged nonsense and strawmen?

Hell you flat out ignored your defense of the cops statements followed by denying cops said them.
---

Tasers are weapons.

What if he grabbed a pistol instead of the taser?

His intent was to harm the police officer any way he could.

The UOFC would probably dictate to tase a fleeing suspect in that scenario.

The officer had no taser, and was in danger, as the suspect could potentially flee to somewhere where he could get a weapon.

If the suspect wasn't a threat, he most likely would still be alive, but since he had intent to harm another individual, and he took the NON lethal weapon away from the officer, well...

To put it in a very curt manner.

You reap what you sow.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

You still don't have to shoot him in the back.

Why do you ignore nearly everything people say then just say emotionally charged nonsense and strawmen?

for quoting case laws is emotional??! Its not a straw man. The court decided he can do that. And you will see in court

---

rahasperj posted...

What if he grabbed a pistol instead of the taser?

Then shooting him would have been justified.

His intent was to harm the police officer any way he could.

No it wasn't. He was running away.

The officer had no taser, and was in danger, as the suspect could potentially flee to somewhere where he could get a weapon.

There 2 officers. He got his taser from them.

And "We had to shoot him in the back because he may have gotten a weapon later." is insanity. By that logic cops can shoot anyone on Earth at any time.

If the suspect wasn't a threat, he most likely would still be alive, but since he had intent to harm another individual, and he took the NON lethal weapon away from the officer, well...

To put it in a very curt manner.

You reap what you sow.

Except that shouldn't be the case. "He got drunk and ran so he deserves to die" is insane.

That's not how justice is supposed to be, let alone how people are supposed to enforce it. You're acting like the rest of the developed world doesn't exist.

There are like 103 ways that situation could have gone down and only like 2 that result in the suspect being killed by cops.

Going "but he's a drunk so it's his fault he got shot by incompetent cops." is not acceptable and one of the thosands of reasons why people are protesting.

You've corrupted the police force into something sick and twisted with logic like that. Of violent death and dehumanization. Where people aren't living beings but a checklist where once you have enough ticks you get to kill them.
---

Eyewitness statement from one of the cops said the taser had already been deployed twice and was effectively useless.

Which means the officer in question knew this and decided to shoot him anyway.

Its lazy policing. He didnt wanna chase the suspect and decided to shoot him in the back.

---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

At that point, he was in a felony state
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

thats it. Its justified

Did you read that?

The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

If a suspect is fleeing while shooting a gun or threatening to cut people with a knife, those constitute a significant threat. Courts have extended the fleeing felon rule because of officers using the excuse "I was afraid for my life," even in situations where it does not pertain. But, as the rule reads, it should not apply to this situation.

Furthermore, it's sick to think that the police have carte blanche to shoot people in the back for running. The constant pushing of boundaries is what got us here in the first place. The solution to every problem cannot be "just shoot him."

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Why do you ignore nearly everything people say then just say emotionally charged nonsense and strawmen?

Funny coming from someone who incessantly repeats "hurr durr they shot him cuz he was drunk."

UnfairRepresent posted...

Then shooting him would have been justified.

No it wasn't. He was running away.

There 2 officers. He got his taser from them.

And "We had to shoot him in the back because he may have gotten a weapon later." is insanity. By that logic cops can shoot anyone on Earth at any time.

Except that shouldn't be the case. "He got drunk and ran so he deserves to die" is insane.

That's not how justice is supposed to be, let alone how people are supposed to enforce it. You're acting like the rest of the developed world doesn't exist.

There are like 103 ways that situation could have gone down and only like 2 that result in the suspect being killed by cops.

Going "but he's a drunk so it's his fault he got shot by incompetent cops." is not acceptable and one of the thosands of reasons why people are protesting.

You've corrupted the police force into something sick and twisted with logic like that. Of violent death and dehumanization. Where people aren't living beings but a checklist where once you have enough ticks you get to kill them.

Strange, I didn't mention the suspect being drunk once in my points, yet you planted it in to have an argument and implying that I said he deserved to be shot because he was drunk. That's a lie.

Also, if his intent was not to harm anyone, he wouldn't have grabbed a weapon. Sure he wanted to get away, but he was willing to hurt an innocent person to make it happen. That makes him a threat.

The man was a danger and armed, the police lost their non lethal option.

---

Annihilated posted...

Funny coming from someone who incessantly repeats "hurr durr they shot him cuz he was drunk."

I'm only responding to what people are saying

"Well he was drunk and ran so you reap what you sow!"

Also speaks volumes that you've ignored every point I made to complain about me responding points other people made because those points are dumb
---